1 comment:

We both started working on similar problems at about the same time. And have come to similar conclusions although not identical through different methods.

I know that the difference in our work comes down to the difference between aggregates and consumption under the assumption of common good on your end, and truthfulness, morality, and rational cooperation under the assumption of not doing 'bad' on mine.

And perhaps nothing more than the difference between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction as the translation of the criteria we both call that "assumption" of common good or 'doing bad'.

With that understanding (if we can achieve it) I feel you are better informed than I am on the consequences of MMT and inflation on prices, credit, debt and possibly information.

Now I am not an MMT supporter but it is the only referrer I know that has enough meaning to provide a starting point.

And while I agree that the K/NK movements describe cause and consequence. I do not think it constitutes a full accounting of consequence, and as such is insufficient. Nor do I find agreement with discretionary action rather than rule of law in matters of influencing the economy by policy means. Any more than I find agreement with discretion in rule of law in the practice of law, or policy.

The problem we (both) face in this subject matter is that there are very few people with broad enough knowledge of the various movements to converse with. Particularly the relatively serious failure of the 20th century thinkers to solve the problem of social science (the Wilsonian Synthesis) and its consequence.

It would help me a great deal if we could talk through this set of ideas. I would be hopeful it would be equally helpful to you as well.